Don’t auction off empty TV airwaves, SXSW activists tell FCC

Activists at the South by Southwest Interactive festival in Austin, TX, built a free wireless network to help publicize the power of unlicensed "white spaces" technology. The project is part of a broader campaign to persuade the FCC not to auction off this spectrum for the exclusive use of wireless carriers.

Almost everyone agrees that until recently, the spectrum allocated for broadcasting television channels was used inefficiently. In less populous areas, many channels sat idle. And channels were surrounded by "guard bands" to prevent adjacent channels from interfering with each other. A coalition that includes technology companies such as Google and Microsoft and think tanks such as the New America Foundation has been lobbying the FCC to open this unused spectrum up to third parties.

The proposal initially faced fierce opposition from broadcasters, but they dropped their opposition after reaching a compromise with the FCC last year. As a result, the FCC recently opened up white space frequencies to unlicensed uses.

Now debate has shifted to a new question: whether to auction off some of these white space frequencies for the exclusive use of private wireless companies. Supporters of the auction approach argue that incumbent wireless providers could use the spectrum to improve their networks. And they point out that the auctions would generate much-needed cash for the federal treasury.

“We ♥ WiFi”

But advocates of unlicensed uses say the spectrum will generate more value if the FCC leaves it open for unlicensed uses. They point to the success of Wi-Fi, which is now embedded in billions of electronic devices and allows people to communicate wirelessly without subscribing to a wireless service.

Enter the "We ♥ WiFi" project. Austin has 14 vacant television channels that are now open for use by white space devices. So during this weekend's South by Southwest Interactive confab, activists set up a wireless network designed to showcase their potential.

The "white space" networking gear they used doesn't have any official connection to the Wi-Fi standard. But the brand has become so well-known that "super Wi-Fi" has become a shorthand for describing unlicensed white space technologies. These devices are permitted to operate at higher power levels than conventional Wi-Fi, making them suitable for longer-distance applications than would be possible with a conventional Wi-Fi network.

Of course, the network would only be useful to conference-goers if the "last hop" of the network was a Wi-Fi link. But these Wi-Fi access points were connected to the rest of the Internet using "white space" gear.

Nick Grossman, an activist in residence at Union Square Ventures and a visiting scholar in the Center for Civic Media at the MIT Media Lab, was an organizer of the project.

"FCC engineers have made clear that the most promising spectrum for broadband wireless is at or below 2.7GHz, where today's Wi-Fi operates," Grossman said. "These frequencies are able to pierce through walls and buildings the same way that TV signals do. There is currently five times more broadband spectrum in this range reserved for exclusive licensed use than for unlicensed. The FCC is now considering whether to make this imbalance worse."

Grossman says the event generated 1,000 signatures asking the FCC not to auction off the unlicensed frequencies for the exclusive use of private network operators. He and other supporters of unlicensed spectrum believe that entrepreneurs will be able to find new and creative ways to use the spectrum, but only if it's left open for anyone to use. They're asking people to sign a petition to the FCC urging the agency to "follow through on your proposal to open up a large slice of high-quality spectrum for open networks."

The downside of long range WiFi is that the number of potential interference sources goes up with the square of the range of your device. The 2.4Ghz spectrum is already quite crowded in any well populated area, and it has a very short range compared to what you're talking about. This is a cool technology, but inherently it cannot be used in the same way as WiFi.

The downside of long range WiFi is that the number of potential interference sources goes up with the square of the range of your device. The 2.4Ghz spectrum is already quite crowded in any well populated area, and it has a very short range compared to what you're talking about. This is a cool technology, but inherently it cannot be used in the same way as WiFi.

Not even if you limit the space a particular company can play in, and everyone continues to use existing WiFi spectrum for the "last hop"?

I've always thought that WiFi's biggest weakness was its limited bandwidth; 802.11G and 802.11N only give you 3 channels in the 2.4GHz band.

I am definitely in favor of opening up more spectrum for either unlicensed or easily licensed use. Personally, I think that with its increased propagation range, Super Wi-Fi should require a simple license that's automatically enforced on line, just to mitigate interference problems.

after being gifted with 3 additional digital channels in the same 6 Mhz spectrum widththe thoughts turn to how to monetize the gift and the last thing they need to do it withis more direct competitors in the white space in the same market [DUH]enter wifi to confront the new entrants against the advantage the existing TV owners have the marginal additional cost of .2, .3, and .4

I think the FCC should auction off the 600Mhz block to cell phone companies.

Long-range WiFi great as a last resort for connectivity. I don't like using the name "super" because its not really super. It has long range, but the speeds are not "super" in any way -- 22Mbps per 6MHz channel is the maximum theoretical, and user speeds are around 5-10Mbps. Its fine for rural areas that would otherwise go unserved. And in those areas, there aren't a whole lot of active TV stations, so even if the FCC reclaims 120MHz of TV spectrum, there will still be white space to go around.

Its in metro areas where the upcoming incentive auction will deplete enough white space to make it not work. But thats OK, because most metro areas are going to benefit from this auction when carriers deploy more coverage (the carriers most likely to pick up 600MHz spectrum are T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, and Dish).

I think the FCC should auction off the 600Mhz block to cell phone companies.

Long-range WiFi great as a last resort for connectivity. I don't like using the name "super" because its not really super. It has long range, but the speeds are not "super" in any way -- 22Mbps per 6MHz channel is the maximum theoretical, and user speeds are around 5-10Mbps. Its fine for rural areas that would otherwise go unserved. And in those areas, there aren't a whole lot of active TV stations, so even if the FCC reclaims 120MHz of TV spectrum, there will still be white space to go around.

Its in metro areas where the upcoming incentive auction will deplete enough white space to make it not work. But thats OK, because most metro areas are going to benefit from this auction when carriers deploy more coverage (the carriers most likely to pick up 600MHz spectrum are T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, and Dish).

Agreed.

While I love the idea of long range wifi on this spectrum, the realities need to be addressed. When 5 homes next to eachother all decide this is the solution to better coverage through their thick walls than 2.4/5ghz wifi the available whitespace spectrum is going to rapidly get flooded with interference. When they then realize 22Mbps is slower than 11g they're going to want to start combining channels, which only makes the interference worse...

The "We ♥ WiFi" site mentions twice that "last week" the FCC opened up this space for unlicensed use. I think the document they're referring to is here, though the FCC really authorized usage back in 2008 (which, as the article mentions, is only now being realized because the NAB dropped their suit last year). This document is stating that white spaces database admins are no longer bound by regional restrictions and can operate nationwide.

Nick Grossman says that the FCC is proposing to auction this spectrum off, but that's only partly true. The FCC is currently working out the rules for the 2014 600 MHz incentive auction, much of which could-- if the reverse auction is successful-- be sold to mobile network operators. One portion of the auction's authorizing legislation (§6407) grants the FCC authority to allow unlicensed use in the guard bands, which in the recent NPRM the FCC proposed be 6 MHz wide. NPRM comments from telcos have roundly criticized that size as being much too wide to be "technically reasonable" (another caveat in the legislation), but I'm hopeful that the FCC will argue that what's reasonable isn't the same thing as what is necessary. Though the use case for this spectrum is, like SirOmega says, probably rural broadband access, maybe low-power use in cities can make cellular roaming more seamless-- not to mention any private uses still undreamed.

I do hope some of it is left open for consumers. I do also hope they keep the spectrum sliced up for 5/6Mhz channels, but without combining them. Wifi uses 4 channels per block, for 20Mhz (simplified) of spectrum for 802.11a/b/g/n, but can do channel bonding in 802.11n and ac for 40mhz (n) and 80/160Mhz (ac). Yes, this means much reduced speeds. However, I'd gladly take the roughly 20-30Mbps that this would imply if I could have that connection at much greater ranges, and also have less congestion.

I do think that the FCC should operate the white space potentially with two different setups, one for unlicensed operators who can, maybe for example, operate gear at low broadcast power, say 1w or something, or maybe 2w. I don't know an appropriate broadcast power, but something that could get you roughly a quarter mile LoS (no obstructions). Then licensed operators, like GMRS where you just have to meet some very minimal requirements and pay a very small license fee, who could maybe broadcast at 10w or something (something that could stretch to maybe a mile or so for omni-broadcasts).

I think this would have a lot of benefit to rural WLAN users and even a lot of suburban WLAN users. In more urban areas the use would of course be much more limited, but at the same time, especially if a small segment was reserved, it could be a HUGE boon for WMANs for "free" metro wifi.

Even if only 1 or 2 channels were reserved for municipal wireless, that would allow a city to offer free/cheap wireless internet access within the city limits much more cheaply. Now instead of, say, 20 high powered Wifi access points to cover a park, the city might only need to setup 1 or 2. Maybe throw up a whitespace access point as part of a street lamp/traffic light every few blocks to extend the coverage.

Anyway, I'd love access even if I have to is at slower speeds. So long as change over from white space to 2.4/5Ghz was seemless, why not? Move far enough from my house and I bump from my Wifi to UHF/VHF WLAN connection and the party keeps going, alibeit slower. That said, once I get about 50ft outside of my house in most directions (except where I am LoS with my family room window in the front where one of my WAPs is positioned) I pretty much am connecting at sub 20Mbps anyway.

Just to expand upon what I was saying, I currently have a pair of 2.4Ghz (Netgear 3500L, granted, not terribly high power and internal antenna's only) WAPs and I have very good coverage inside of my 2400sq-ft rancher basement and mainlevel with one WAP positioned in my family room main level on one side of the house and the other positioned in the basement utility room up against the exterior rim joist on the opposite side of the house (roughly 18inches AGL). I can cover about 60% of my 1 acre property on top of the house itself (counting coverage as my phone and tablet being able to connect, my laptop can connect over basically the whole property, maybe 90%...at abysmal speeds once I get near the edge). I could probably extend the coverage to 100% with a better router/WAP + some big external antennas, but edge coverage would likely still not be great. Alternately I could place a 3rd WAP outside of the house toward the rear edge of my property and that would likely provide good coverage over the entire property.

That is with only an acre to "deal with". I can see a case where someone has, for example, 5 acres, Wifi coverage of the whole property isn't terribly feasible without a number of WAPs and/or high gain antennas and/or VERY big omni-antennas and you are also going to want LoS to most of it.

Enter white space WLAN and you could likely cover that entire property with a single WAP. Probably even cover bigger properties too. Have 50 acres you want coverage on (I don't know, you want to be able to connect to spotify over WLAN while driving your tractor or something).

And on a related note, isn't it silly to sell these spectrum's? shouldn't we be leasing them?

The FCC licenses spectrum for 10 year intervals, making carriers into de facto owners. But the de facto owners of the spectrum have a perpetual license to keep it. Only if they don't renew their license would they lose it.

As I understand it, lower MHz radio frequencies are generally better at penetrating buildings than higher ones.

Only really accurate when you're talking about frequencies over 100MHz or so... Below that, you run into other problems like the wave length being so large that, say, a standard window isn't large enough to let the signal through. The only common example that comes to mind is (~1,000KHz) AM radio stations fading out when you drive under a bridge, while (~100MHz) FM radio stations penetrate the area under the bridge just fine.

Quote:

The old TV space has a good chunk of bandwidth. Seems like plenty for both purposes. Why not explicitly reserve a specific (and large) range of it for local white space, and sell the rest?

The cell phone companies will NEVER have enough bandwidth and spectrum. They want to keep serving higher speeds to more users. And there isn't a ton to be taken from the TV spectrum, since broadcasters are still broadcasting on most of it. Sharing a 100MHz block is going to get rough.

WiFi manages okay with a smaller bit of spectrum in 2.4GHz *only* because it is so terribly short-range and low power, so reuse is extremely high. If it worked over longer ranges like these lower frequencies, you'd turn on your laptop and see signals for THOUSANDS of APs, each trying to shout over one-another, and in the end, all failing.

I can cover about 60% of my 1 acre property on top of the house itself [...]That is with only an acre to "deal with". I can see a case where someone has, for example, 5 acres,

Either you've got dense forest across your property, or your AP is complete junk. I've deployed WiFi blanketing a 10 acre property with just 4 APs (and good speeds all over), and it's only that many because of the large buildings posing obstacles. Max legal power is 20dB, and it doesn't cost any more to get an AP that powerful.

LoS is important to maximize the speed between the bridging APs, but you can do okay without it.

Anyone happen to find more technical details on the actual white space radios that they used for the backhaul links? It'd be interesting to hear the engineers stories on how the setup and deployment went from the technical side of things.

(Full Disclosure - I work for a company that makes wireless (but not white space) radios, and nerd out in modem land all day long ;-) )

As I understand it, lower MHz radio frequencies are generally better at penetrating buildings than higher ones.

Only really accurate when you're talking about frequencies over 100MHz or so... Below that, you run into other problems like the wave length being so large that, say, a standard window isn't large enough to let the signal through. The only common example that comes to mind is (~1,000KHz) AM radio stations fading out when you drive under a bridge, while (~100MHz) FM radio stations penetrate the area under the bridge just fine.

Quote:

The old TV space has a good chunk of bandwidth. Seems like plenty for both purposes. Why not explicitly reserve a specific (and large) range of it for local white space, and sell the rest?

The cell phone companies will NEVER have enough bandwidth and spectrum. They want to keep serving higher speeds to more users. And there isn't a ton to be taken from the TV spectrum, since broadcasters are still broadcasting on most of it. Sharing a 100MHz block is going to get rough.

WiFi manages okay with a smaller bit of spectrum in 2.4GHz *only* because it is so terribly short-range and low power, so reuse is extremely high. If it worked over longer ranges like these lower frequencies, you'd turn on your laptop and see signals for THOUSANDS of APs, each trying to shout over one-another, and in the end, all failing.

The deal with the wifi bands is the Fresnel zones, physical dimensions being a function of frequency, are smaller than say VHF. Basically wifi frequencies are good for a cluttered environment.

I've done 7 miles on just regular 2.4G wifi and one directional antenna, the other being an omni. Distance for a single user isn't much of an issue. This was in the boonies with little interference.

What they need to do is get all HDtV off of VHF. Save that for land mobile radio. Cops,etc. All the spectrum saving schemes used to jam more law enforcement and even commercial radio in existing spectrum ends up being a hidden tax. I used to snicker when the cops paid $500 for what is like a $150 ham radio. Now the cops pay nearly $4k a radio. Uh, make that we taxpayers pay it. Give the old VHF HDTV owners multiple UHF TV frequencies if needed to cover the same area.

I wouldn't mind a mix of muni and private white space. Private white space will be a zoo, but so is wifi.

Just to expand upon what I was saying, I currently have a pair of 2.4Ghz (Netgear 3500L, granted, not terribly high power and internal antenna's only) WAPs and I have very good coverage inside of my 2400sq-ft rancher basement and mainlevel with one WAP positioned in my family room main level on one side of the house and the other positioned in the basement utility room up against the exterior rim joist on the opposite side of the house (roughly 18inches AGL). I can cover about 60% of my 1 acre property on top of the house itself (counting coverage as my phone and tablet being able to connect, my laptop can connect over basically the whole property, maybe 90%...at abysmal speeds once I get near the edge). I could probably extend the coverage to 100% with a better router/WAP + some big external antennas, but edge coverage would likely still not be great. Alternately I could place a 3rd WAP outside of the house toward the rear edge of my property and that would likely provide good coverage over the entire property.

That is with only an acre to "deal with". I can see a case where someone has, for example, 5 acres, Wifi coverage of the whole property isn't terribly feasible without a number of WAPs and/or high gain antennas and/or VERY big omni-antennas and you are also going to want LoS to most of it.

Enter white space WLAN and you could likely cover that entire property with a single WAP. Probably even cover bigger properties too. Have 50 acres you want coverage on (I don't know, you want to be able to connect to spotify over WLAN while driving your tractor or something).

I have 5 acres I would love to cover. Its not so much about spotify as it is home automation. Think irrigation systems connected to home automation systems. Security systems connected to the network around the property. There are a million reasons why I would love my 5 acres to be covered with network connectivity and spotify tractor riding is only 1

I have 5 acres I would love to cover. Its not so much about spotify as it is home automation. Think irrigation systems connected to home automation systems. Security systems connected to the network around the property. There are a million reasons why I would love my 5 acres to be covered with network connectivity and spotify tractor riding is only 1

I assume the other reason is $$$? Because there is licensed bands available for business use that would work.